View full case

GLORIA LUCAS v. JUDGE AMELIA A. FABROS

FACTS:

Complainant Gloria Lucas filed a complaint against Judge Amelia A. Fabros alleging gross ignorance of the law and grave abuse of discretion in relation to Civil Case No. 151248 entitled "Editha F. Gacad, represented by Elenita F. Castelo vs. Gloria Lucas, for Ejectment." The complainant claimed that Judge Fabros granted the plaintiff's motion for reconsideration of the order dismissing the case for failure to appear at the preliminary conference, in violation of Section 19 (c) of the Rules of Summary Procedure which prohibits a motion for reconsideration. Complainant further alleged that the judge ordered the revival of the case out of malice, partiality, and with intent to cause injury.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether or not Judge Fabros committed gross ignorance of the law and grave abuse of discretion.

  2. Whether or not the motion for reconsideration was prohibited under the Rules of Summary Procedure.

RULING:

  1. The Supreme Court dismissed the complaint against Judge Fabros. It held that the motion for reconsideration in this case was not prohibited under the Rules of Summary Procedure. The rule prohibiting motions for new trial, reconsideration of a judgment, or reopening of trial only applies to judgments rendered on the merits of the case after a trial. In this case, the order of dismissal issued by Judge Fabros due to the party's failure to appear at the preliminary conference was not a judgment on the merits. Therefore, a motion for reconsideration of such order is not the prohibited pleading contemplated under the Rules. The Court concluded that Judge Fabros committed no grave abuse of discretion or ignorance of the law in granting due course to the motion for reconsideration. The complaint against her was dismissed.

PRINCIPLES:

  • A motion for reconsideration is prohibited under the Rules of Summary Procedure only when seeking reconsideration of a judgment rendered on the merits of the case after a trial.

  • The first duty of the court is to apply the law, and when the law is clear and unambiguous, there is no room for interpretation. However, good intentions cannot free a judge from liability if they go against clear legal provisions.